No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Audience, Communication and Textuality in Catullus Carmen 67*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
Catullus c. 67 is a problematic piece that has proved troublesome for scholars, primarily because its story of sexual scandal is highly ambiguous. Various scholars have claimed that they have finally solved the details of the poem's slippery narrative, and have identified the author's intention in creating such obscurity. Copley, Giangrande and Richardson argue that the story is clear, and then create a web of hypothetical events to explain the ambiguities in the text. Unfortunately, the hypotheses contradict one another, and none provides an account of the story that explains away all the problems. So far, consensus on a ‘solution’ has not been reached. More recently, scholars have turned away from this controversial topic, focusing instead on the poetic and thematic effects of the poem.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2009
Footnotes
*
This article substantially expands the paper that I originally presented at Roman Byways: A Conference in Memory of Charles Tesoriero in 2007. The conference attendees provided much food for thought and I am grateful for their perceptive comments. Further thanks are due to the anonymous reader for Antichthon, and to Professor Marilyn B. Skinner, Professor Christopher van den Berg and Associate Professor Lindsay Watson, who provided stimulating discussion and helpful comments on this topic.
References
1 A significant amount of scholarship on various aspects of the poem appeared in the 20th century. Thomson, D.F.S., Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary (Toronto 1998) 471Google Scholar, gives bibliography up to 1997. The most fruitful examinations of c. 67 in recent years appear in the monographs on Catullus which consider c. 67 in the light of its surrounding carmina. See Fitzgerald, William, Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position (Berkeley 1995) 202–7Google Scholar; Wray, David, Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood (Cambridge 200l) 138–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Skinner, Marilyn B., Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116 (Columbus 2003) 44–59Google Scholar.
2 Copley, Frank O., ‘The “Riddle” of Catullus 67’, AJP 80 (1949) 245-6, 253Google Scholar. Richardson, L. Jr., ‘Catullus 67: Interpretation and Form’, AJP 88 (1967) 424–33Google Scholar, puts forward an interesting hypothesis that c. 67 is an example of Fescennine verses. Guiseppe Giangrande, ‘Catullus 67’, QUCC9 (1970) 85-130, creates a suppositious reading that, despite being intended to liberate the story from the vagaries of critics, makes it even more complicated.
3 Forsyth, Phyllis Young, ‘Catullus 67: Poeta Chiarissimo?’, Latomus 45 (1986) 374Google Scholar.
4 Macleod, Colin, ‘The Artistry of Catullus 67’, in The Collected Essays of Colin Macleod (Oxford 1983) 187–8Google Scholar, deals briefly with the ambiguities within his broader discussion of poetic effect. Similarly Skinner (n. 1) focuses on thematic significance in c. 67, but she presents the Prior rproblem, noting that ‘there are good arguments on both sides’ (47). Wray (n. 1) concentrates on his own interpretation of the poem's Mediterranean context.
5 Copley (n. 2) 245-6; Kroll, Wilhelm, ‘C.s 67. Gedicht’, Philologue 63 (1904) 139–47Google Scholar. The theory was most recently presented by Forsyth (n. 3) 374-82. From Thomson's comments (n. 1) 465 on c. 671 believe he too supports the theory, though he does not state that explicitly.
6 Copley (n. 2) 245-6, Forsyth (n. 3) 374 and Thomson (n. 1) 465.
7 Copley (n. 2) is the most vocal exponent of this theory; see 245-6.
8 This position is explicitly taken by Forsyth (n. 3) 379, and is implied by Copley (n. 2) 252.
9 Forsyth (n. 3) quoted from 382. See also 379, ‘could not that [intended] audience have been able to interpret uir prior on the basis of its knowledge of the people and events under scrutiny in the poem?’ Forsyth does not explicitly discuss c. 67 as a diffamano but it is implied in her argument.
10 A problem in responding to this logical fallacy is that it is not explicitly articulated by scholars whose argument seems to rely on it. While the issue of possible readers for c. 67 has been discussed by such scholars, it has not been contextualised within the broader question of Catullus' intended readership for other poems, which in turn necessarily raises die Catullfrage.
11 Macleod (n. 4) 187. See Holzberg, Niklas, Catull: Der Dichter und sein erotisches Werk (München1 2002) 161–2Google Scholar, for brief discussion of the Roman readership of c. 67.
12 For example, c. 35, c. 68 and arguably c. 100.
13 I believe that Copley's article (n. 2) is predicated on this exact assumption, which explains much of his argument. He did not need to make this assumption explicit, because reading Canillan poems as individual pieces unrelated to their possible place or role within the collection was more common in his era than in the current one. Forsyth (n. 3) does not take an explicit position on die Catullfrage but her interpretation of c. 67 as an independently circulating poem suggests that she does not think Catullus edited the corpus as it currently appears.
14 See esp. Quinn, Kenneth, Catullus: An Interpretation (London 1972)Google Scholar; Wiseman, T.P., Catullus and his World: A Reappraisal (Cambridge 1985)Google Scholar; Dettmer, Helena, Love by the Numbers: Form and Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus (New York 1997)Google Scholar; and Skinner (n. 1). One objection that can be raised to the notion of Catullan organisation of the present collection is the existence of fragments by the poet; on this see Jocelyn, H.D., ‘The Arrangement and the Language of Catullus' So-called polymètre with Special Reference to the Sequence 10–1112’, in Adams, J.N. and Mayer, R.G. (eds), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Oxford 1999) 375Google Scholar n. 215.
15 For the latest discussion on this topic see Skinner, , ‘Authorial Arrangement of the Collection: Debate Past and Present’, in Skinner, (ed.), A Companion to Catullus (Maiden 2007) 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Scholars who see elements of design in Catullus' corpus do not necessarily agree that he organized the whole corpus as it currently stands in the manuscript tradition, nor do they suggest that it was necessarily intended to be published as a single book-roll.
16 For discussion of Catullus' organisation of cc. 1-60 and the concept of the lepidus nouus libellus, ‘charming new book’, see Skinner, , Catullus' Passer: The Arrangement of the Book of Polymetric Poems (Salem 1981)Google Scholar esp. the concluding section 103-6. James L.P. Butrica is the most recent scholar to make the case that the corpus was not originally published in its entirety as it appears in manuscripts OGR, in his chapter, ‘History and Transmission of the Text’, in Skinner, op. cit. (n. 15) 13-34. Butrica argues that c. 62 circulated as an independent poem in Catullus' lifetime (29-30) and suggests that c. 61 ended a Uber hendecasyllaborum, ‘book of hendecasyllables' (30). This seems a sensible solution; cc. 1-61 circulated and organised by the poet, cc. 62-64 circulating independently, and cc. 65-116 also released as a After during the poet's lifetime.
17 On this issue Wiseman, , Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature (Leicester 1979) 180–1Google Scholar, comments that ‘a collection of poems by Catullus, especially one beginning with a dedication-poem, ought to be Catullus' work: the onus of proof is on those who declare it to be impossible.’
18 For a full analysis of the relationship between c. 67 and the other elegies, see Macleod (n. 4) 187-95. See also Skinner's reading (n. 1).
19 As well as links between c. 67 and the poems bracketing it, connections occur between c. 66 and c. 68, and c. 65 and c. 68, leading Skinner to read the elegies cc. 65-68 as a sequence (n. 1) 29-59. On the connection between c. 66 and c. 67, see Hutchinson, G.O., ‘The Catullan Corpus, Greek Epigram, and the Poetry of Objects’, CQ 53 (2003) 206–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hutchinson argues that cc. 1-60, cc. 65-68 and cc. 69-116 each have a different relationship to Greek epigram. In particular he notes that in c. 61 Catullus uses the Callimachean trick of having an inanimate object speak, which is a generic trait of Greek epigram.
20 C. 68 takes a Roman addressee, (M)allius (see especially c. 68.27-36). C. 66 is appended to c. 65, which is directed towards the Roman Hortalus (c. 65.2). Neudling, Chester Louis, A Prosopography to Catallus (Oxford 1955) 83–6Google Scholar, identifies this figure as the orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus.
21 See Macleod (n. 4) 187 on the urban readers of c. 61. While I agree with Macleod that c. 67 was intended primarily for a Roman readership, I disagree with his suggestion that the ambiguities of the poem can be resolved (187-8).
22 Doctrina in these poems is well documented. See Thomson (n. 1) 225 on references to Callimachus at c. 7.3-6. On the allusion to Theoc. Id. 15.100 at c. 36.12-14 see Fordyce, C.J., Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford 1961) 181Google Scholar, Thomson (n. 1) 406. C 51 is a translation and adaptation of Sappho frag. 31 L.-P. On the highly allusive nature of c.64 as it incorporates Apollonius, Euripides and Ennius, see Thomas, Richard, ‘Catullus and the Polemics of Poetic Reference (Poem 64.1-18)’, AJP 103 (1982) 144–64Google Scholar, and Jeri Blair DeBrohun, ‘Catullan Intertextuality: Apollonius and the Allusive Plot of Catullus 64’, in Skinner (n. 15) 293-313. In c. 101 a line of Homer's Odyssey is adapted to great effect; on this see Conte, Gian Biagio, ‘Poetic Memory and the Art of Allusion (on a verse of Catullus and one of Vergil)’, in Gaisser, Julia Haig (ed.), Catullus (Oxford 2007) 167–76Google Scholar.
23 C. 1 contains many references to Callimachus and the neoteric style. In particular the poet stresses that his is a small collection of verses (lepidum libellum, ‘charming little book’, 1, nugas, ‘trifles’, 4) and its highly polished quality (arida modo pumice expolitum, ‘just now polished with dry pumice’, 2). Catullus reinforces the value that he places on this style in the compliment he gives to Cornelius Nepos, when he implies that the prose writer Nepos is learned and succinct (omne aeuum tribus explicare earns / doctis, luppiter, et laboriosis, ‘to unroll the whole of history in three volumes, learned, by Jupiter, and full of hard work’, 6-7). In c. 95, Catullus stresses the small, elite nature of his and Cinna's audience, in contrast to the multitude who love ‘swollen Antimachus’ (parva mei mihi sint cordi monimenta … /at populus tumido gaudeat Antimacho, ‘let small memorials be to my taste … but let the multitude rejoice in swollen Antimachus’, 9-10). Here I follow Thomson (n. 1) 525 who reads c. 95b with c. 95.
24 Wiseman (n. 14) 110 notes that Catullus and others received a first-rate education in Greek and literature. Such education was probably not accessible to persons of lower classes.
25 This reading is based on Fitzgerald's analysis (n. 1) 196-211 of cc. 65-68.
26 Skinner (n. 1) 45, Macleod (n. 4) 191.
27 Pfeiffer, Rudolfus (ed.), Callimachus, 2 vols (Oxford 1949, 1953)Google Scholar: Aetia 3, frag. 64 (Sepulcrum Simonidis), Aetia 4, frag. 103 (Androgeos), Aetia 4, frag. 110 (Coma Berenices); fragmenta inc. lib., frag. 114 (Statua Apollonis Delii. Fabula Thracia incerta), IambusA, frag. 194, lambusS, frag. 197, Iambus9, frag. 199, fragmenta incertae sedis 621, Epigrammata 5, Epigrammata 26.
28 Callim. Iamb. 4 is frag. 194 Pf.; ‘The Lock of Berenice’ is frag. 110 Pf. On the characterisation of the Door, see Hallett, Judith, ‘lamia iucunda [“Pleasing door”]: The Characterisation of the Door in C. 67’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II (Brussels 1980) 106–22Google Scholar, and Murgatroyd, P., ‘Some Neglected Aspects of Catullus 67’, Hermes 117 (1989) 471–8Google Scholar. Hallett argues that the Door is a matrona, ‘married woman’, rather than ancilla, ‘serving maid’, but Murgatroyd's refutation of her interpretation is on balance convincing (473-7).
29 Stated most strongly in Fitzgerald (n. 1) 205-7; see also Macleod (n. 4) 192-3.
30 Although it is treated very differently in each piece. The female subject of c. 67 is reported to be adulterous, whereas Berenice of c. 66 maintained her chastity.
31 Macleod (n. 4) 193.
32 Fitzgerald (n. 1)205.
33 Fitzgerald (n. 1) 205 comparing c. 66.51-70 with c. 67.19-36.
34 Fitzgerald (n. 1) 205.
35 Fitzgerald (n. 1)204-7.
36 Here I am following R.O.A.M. Lyne's conclusion in ‘The Neoteric Poets’, in Gaisser (n. 22) 109-40, that there was an identifiably ‘neoteric’ circle (112-6). However, I disagree with his deduction that Catullus did not edit the collection (129).
37 E.g. in div. 1.14, when translating Aratus, Dios. (Weather Signs), Cicero uses the technique: fuscaque non numquam cursansperlitora comix, ‘and sometimes the hoarse-sounding/dusky crow running over the shore’. However, the line is not a golden one.
38 For comprehensive analysis of ‘enclosing word order’ in c. 64 see Pearce, T.E.V., ‘The Enclosing Word Order in the Latin Hexameter. I’, CQ 16 (1966) 140–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 See the insightful comments of Lyne (n. 36) on Cicero's parody of a neoteric line (112), and his discussion of the neoteric aspects of c. 64 at 118-20.
40 For further details of Catullus' extensive use of poetic techniques in this piece, see Murgatroyd (n. 28) 478. He gives as examples of the Door's stylistic elegance: ‘alliteration (in 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 26, 36, 38, 39, 39 f, 43, 45, 45 f.), assonance (in 10, 11, 14, 23 f., 28, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45 f.), rhyme (internal in 28, 36; between first and last words in 10, 25, 36), homoeoteleuton (11), repetition (10, 11, 43), balance (23 f., 25 f., 44), paronomasia with contrast (40) and care over the placement of words (juxtaposition in 20, 26, 36; chiasmus in 10 (meus, ‘mine’ and esse, ‘to be’) and 43-6 (nomine, ‘by name’ and dicere, ‘to mention’); verbs at either end of 37).’
41 Meaning that it alludes to and engages with previous literary works and their authors.
42 Forsyth (n. 3) 374 provides an account of the debate.
43 Copley (n. 2) 246.
44 The grammar and sense of this line are contentious. See Badian, E., ‘The Case of the Door's Marriage (Catullus 67.6)’, HSCPM (1980) 81–9Google Scholar for discussion.
45 The gnati, ‘of his son’, of line 23 appears courtesy of an emendation which is convincing and has been accepted by most scholars. The exception is Richardson (n. 2) 426 who argues against the emendation.
46 I have included both readings of this Une because each is equally viable, and my argument is partly based on the semantic instability of uir prior.
47 Through examination of Catullus' naming practices throughout the corpus, Forsyth (n. 3) 376-7 argues against the potential objection to seeing Caecilius as Balbus' son (that it is odd to use both nomen, ‘clan name‘ and cognomen, ‘surname‘ to refer to people of the same gens).
48 Kroll (n. 5) 142-3, Thomson (n. 1) 465, 468. Thomson's argument is unclear. He argues for a ‘former husband’ in his introduction, but on line 20 writes that prior is ‘probably not to be taken with uir in the sense ‘her former husband’ even though in fact he seems to have been the person in question.’ It is unclear to me where Thomson finds justification for the ‘former husband’ if not in prior.
49 Copley (n. 2) 246, Giangrande (n. 2) 117. See Forsyth (n. 3) 378 for more details on the division of scholarship on this point.
50 Kroll (n. 5) 143 suggests it was because everyone knew the husband was sterile, an approach dependent on the assumption of a Veronese readership.
51 On the relationship of Verona to Brixia in this era, see Forsyth (n. 3) 380.
52 Forsyth (n. 3) 379.
53 Forsyth (n. 3) 379. Forsyth does not specify that what she refers to here as the ‘poet's intended audience’ must be Veronese. However, in context it is clear that she refers to those who have an intimate familiarity with the Veronese scene and must be Veronese themselves.
54 Forsyth (n. 3) 377. I agree with much of Forsyth's reading of the poem, particularly her demonstration of its ambiguity. I diverge from her on the issue of the poem's intended audience and the related question of its purpose.
55 Wray (n. 1) 139 argues that the men are not named because to name them could result in the victims taking legal proceedings against Catullus. This presumes that the subjects of the poem were real, which is not guaranteed.
56 This use of a loquacious speaker is not unparalleled in Catullus' corpus. The phaselus, ‘yacht’, of c. 4 is similarly characterized by a plethora of speaking verbs (lines 2, 6, 7, 15) and he is likewise a figure of fun. In c. 4, by placing the emphasis on verbs of speaking, the narrator presents the boat's story as precisely that – a story being told. This creates a barrier between the speaking object, its audience, and its ‘interpreter’ (the narrator) that is reminiscent of the dynamic in c. 67 between Door, interlocutor and audience. The phaselus is not nearly as problematic a figure as the Door, and the narrator of c. 4 assumes a more affectionate posture towards the boat than the interlocutor of c. 67 does towards the Door. Yet the two objects are linked in being the two most garrulous figures in the Catullan corpus, both situated in Transpadane Gaul (reading the limpidum lacum, ‘limpid lake’, of c. 4.24 as a reference to the ‘Lydian’ Lake of c. 31.13 where Sirmio was situated). The proliferation of verbs of speaking means that these provincial objects practically shout out at Roman readers from the text. Does the loquaciousness ascribed to these personified Transpadane objects represent an actual cultural reality about interaction in the provinces? Or does it rather play to (or play on) Romans readers’ perceptions of provincials?
57 Gaisser, , ‘Threads in the Labyrinth: Competing Views and Voices in Catullus 64’, AJP 116 (1995) 579-616, at 582Google Scholar n. 9, and Ross, David Jr., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome (Cambridge 1975) 78Google Scholar.
58 The most pertinent example in Catullus is the introduction to c. 64, where dicuntur, ‘are said’, at line 2 introduces a host of specific allusions to Euripides, Apollonius and Ennius. The most exciting part of this passage is that Catullus is not only alluding to the material that authors have presented before him, but also to the allusions that they made to authors who wrote earlier still - Ennius to Apollonius, Apollonius to Euripides. For discussion, see Thomas (n. 22), DeBrohun (n. 22), and Gaisser (n. 57). I suggest that such ‘footnoting’ works particularly well in mythical narratives, because mythology, with its rich and varied storehouse, provided the perfect material with which a poet steeped in the Latin tradition of imitatio, ‘imitation’ and allusion, could demonstrate creativity and adherence to tradition.
59 Gaisser (n. 57) 582 n. 9.
60 This explanation of Brixia's role in the text is predicated on the fact that the passage raises questions about the Door's truthfulness. Readings of ‘Brixia’ previously focused on the historicity of Brixia's connection with Verona, and the possibility that the female subject of c. 67 was from Brixia. Forsyth (n. 3) 380 has suggested that the historical subject of the diffamatio was from Brixia, and that naming the town identified the woman. Yet this creates a bigger question because the poet uses the town in such a way that the Door's credibility is undermined. If a real Brixian woman was in fact the subject of the poem, Catullus could have identified her as coming from Brixia without creating this striking contradiction in the Door's story. Additionally, the use of the topographical details and the ahistorical claim that Brixia is the mother of Verona, stand out sharply from the graphic depiction of incestimi, ‘incest’. This brings Brixia to the reader's attention. Giangrande (n. 2) 107-10 gives various scholars’ views on the question of Brixia's role in the text. His solution to the difficulties proposed by Brixia is to emend Veronae, ‘of Verona’, to matronae, ‘of <my> married woman’ (114-5). This emendation has not received wide approval.
61 On Callimachus and local geography, see Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 1 (Oxford 1972) 522-3, also 524Google Scholar. Contra, Macleod (n. 4) 189 suggests, in describing Brixia, that the Door ‘draws on the repertory of commonplaces in praise of cities.’ Though I disagree with Macleod on this point, he goes on to make a sophisticated argument showing how the characterisation of Brixia related to the Door's case: ‘if Brixia is Verona's “beloved mother” its motives in testifying must be benevolent. At the same time the poet sounds a sarcastic undertone … it is also implied that if Brixia is so dear to Verona that is because mother and daughter are two of a kind, malicious gossips.’ Here I also disagree with Wiseman (n. 14) 110 who gives these lines as evidence that ‘the new colonies equipped themselves with a legendary past – hence “Brixia, mother of my Verona”, and the “Lydian lake” Benacus, evidence not for real prehistory but for the aspirations of settlers with a pride in their new country.’ The treatment of these lines as evidence of Catullan patriotism is difficult to reconcile with the comic tone of c. 67 and the Door's character.